|
New World, New Threats
|
by
Tim Erickson:
President of Politalk
24/03/2003 |
 |
"But this new world faces a new threat: of disorder
and chaos born
either of brutal states like Iraq, armed with weapons of mass
destruction; or of extreme terrorist groups."
Tony Blair, March 20, 2003
As a US citizen, I oppose this war in Iraq and I am troubled
by the
manor in which my government dealt with the international
community
as we prepared for war.
However, I cannot help but be troubled by the "new threat"
that Prime
Minister Tony Blair referred to in his speech to his nation
on March
20th after committing British troops to battle. The threat
"of
disorder and chaos born either of brutal states like Iraq,
armed with
weapons of mass destruction; or of extreme terrorist groups."
I am sympathetic with the burden that President Bush carries
on his
shoulders, the burden of both believing in a new and dangerous
threat
to world order and in the simultaneous belief that he has
in his
power the capacity to do something about it.
I supported the European commitment to an "International"
solution
and am a strong believer in the potential of the United Nations.
However, I sometimes think of myself as a "realist"
and am forced to
question the "realism" of believing that the United
Nations ever had
the capability to deal with an issue as complex as the issue
of Iraq.
As much as I dislike his attitude and policies, I understand
my
President's frustration. I am unconvinced that the international
institutions exist today that are necessary to deal with this
"new
threat." I am unconvinced that some European leaders
are willing to
confront the true nature of this "new threat." I
cannot say with
confidence that United Nations Security Council had the will
or the
commitment to really hold Saddam Hussein accountable.
For many American's the issues of Iraq is one of leadership,
the
leadership that the United States is showing by confronting
Iraq and
the "new threat" that it represents. However, I
fear that we are
leading the international community in the wrong direction
and that
whatever satisfaction we get from this military campaign,
it will be
short lived.
Tony Blair spoke of a "new world" which "faces
a new threat." Yet, I
fear that political leaders on both sides of the Atlantic
are still
living in the old world. The United Nations may be a cold
war relic,
but is a relic that we need and a relic which can be reformed
or, in
the worst case scenario, replaced.
Had there been any chance of the United Nations doing the
right thing
in this case, it was undermined by the US from the start.
At the same
time, European bickering and posturing gave President Bush
the cover
he needed to implement his bad ideas.
As the war rages on, US citizens are taking great solace
in the fact
that they are freeing Iraqi citizens from a brutal dictator.
But,
there are many more brutal dictators waiting in line and not
much
chance that either the US or Europe will be taking any action
on
behalf of the citizens that they repress.
Neither US aggression nor European complacency holds the
answer to
this "new threat." Forgive me for using this term,
but there must be
a Third Way. For the sake of citizens living under brutal
dictators
in many countries and for the security of the international
community, we must find a way in which the international community
can jointly take action against both leaders of rouge nations
and
extreme terrorist groups.
We need to be both aggressive and cooperative. Unfortunately,
for
that to happen, the US will have to come to terms with its
isolation
and Europe may need to come to terms with its vulnerability.
copyright
TIES
|
)
